Climategate!

[RealmofOpeth]

i'm too lazy to read through all the banter here, but i'll leave a couple tidbits.

first of all, i find it funny the deniers of anthropogenic climate change want to argue with experts of the field, over the motive that the government is going to rape and ruin everyone if it is accepted as true. Isn't this the motive? Correct me if i'm wrong.

Instead of crying about how you think it's all propaganda, perhaps once hypothetically thinking that if it is true and we're all ****ed if it is (regardless of what the government could possibly do harmful to amount to a planet in a destabilized climate that puts the entire human race in jeopardy..aside of course from nuclear war), that then we can worry about the methods that go into place that are proposed to eliminate it. Since that is the motive for caring about it in the first place, right?

Seems like the focus is lost here....If one is so hell bent on preventing bad methods of reducing anthropogenic climate change (like those that do not actually curb it, but instead tax the shit out of everyone), then fight THAT...not the data of the climate change itself. Because if it's true, it matters not your fears of the evil government taking your precious freedom. You're going to be worrying about a place that is habitable...let alone who runs it. But I don't think you guys are a threat to worsening climate change particularly, you're just noisy and wasting your time.

basically saying, scientists don't give a shit about your personal opinions, so they're going with the anthropogenic climate change persuasion anyway. I don't think scientists know everything, but they do know much more than the general public and are constantly under scrutiny of their equally educated peers. Try reading the scientific journals instead of the magazines and listening to the radio hosts. Focus ones efforts on fighting bullshit prevention methods that waste money and unnecessarily infringe freedoms. Because nobody wants that shit, whether they believe the probelm is there or not. Or is it just easier to deny the whole problem exists so you can't be bothered with figuring out which prevention methods are bs and which aren't? I wouldn't be surprised if it is, seeing as you guys can't be bothered to verify the information beyond sensationalistic opinion suppliers.

Here's some good videos that blow apart this climate gate bullshit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo


here's the beginning of the series that tries to explain how the issue works:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo

[sgreger1]

Yes, let's all get baptized and go to church "just in case" the rapture is real while we're at it....


If it weren't for the fact that our economy would be dramatically affected by this, id say lets do it. We should instead get off oil and try to be better to the earth instead of creating a new carbon trade market that will allow the biggest polluter to continue profiting, as cited in my last post. Why the liberals are so hellbent on helping the big energy corporations make a larger profit than ever, I will never know.

The earth has been changing and will continue to change, even if we raise gas to $7 and cut out co2 emissions to 0. Humans cannot change the fact that the earth is bigger than them. But some insist we can micromanage it because we know better. Best to just cut pollution and not give in to government propaganda that we should let these people continue polluting. Farmers and middle class families are not the enemy of the planet, large corporations are.

So no, we should not go with it, "just in case".

[justintempler]

OTOH our economy is already being affected by it now.

You've got no problem bitching and whining about the trillion dollars of debt being run up by the government.

but when it comes to the price of oil you've got no problem borrowing a billion dollars a day to feed our oil habit?

What makes the first one wrong and the second one OK?

You want to wait until we've completely used up our carbon fuels and we're broke before we begin rebuilding our infrastucture.

Take a little pain now or a lot more pain later.

Deep Economy. Read It

Our ideas of growth and development can’t involve the rest of the world (or even Americans) living like Americans.

1. If the Chinese ate meat like Americans, they’d use 2/3 of the world grain harvest.

2. If the Chinese owned cars like Americans, they’d use more than all the oil currently produced globally.

3. If the Chinese ate fish like the Japanese, they’d consume more than the current global harvest which is already not sustainable.

4. Now think what if India, SE Asia, and Africa followed suit.


But why should the world want to live like Americans when:

1. Europeans have a higher quality of life, work fewer hours, and use half as much energy.

2. People in Kerala, India earn an average of a few dollars a day but have higher literacy and higher education rates and similar life expectancies as Americans.

3. Americans don’t rank in the Top 10 in Quality of Life or Average Happiness while European countries dominate both lists.

Conducive Chronicle

http://peakoil.com/modules.php?name=...icle&sid=55056
http://cchronicle.com/2010/03/deep-economy-read-it/

I like this little snipet from the 2nd link:

6.Californians, most of whom have high quality tap water from the Sierras, throw away 1.2 billion water bottles every year. Water that was often shipped long distances using large amounts of fuel.

at the same time this is happening people are being sued in California for reducing their water usage:

...They've substantially reduced their water needs -- but the city is suing the couple now, for falling foul of a by-law that requires forces homeowners to keep 40 percent of their yards covered with living plants...

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/288403

[sgreger1]

but when it comes to the price of oil you've got no problem borrowing a billion dollars a day to feed our oil habit?

What makes the first one wrong and the second one OK?

You want to wait until we've completely used up our carbon fuels and we're broke before we begin rebuilding our infrastucture.

Justin be fair here. The whole time I have advocated that we get off oil. I have repeatedly said that it is absolute insanity that we put ourselves in a position where we have to buy our energy from our enemies.

I never said I want to use up our carbon fuels or anything of the sort. I said we should, as part of a green initiative, invest in alternative fuel sources. What I said was that this global warming thing is demonizing co2, unfairly putting the burden on farmers and the middle class , as well as small businesses, instead of solving the real problem which is getting off oil. The bgi oil companies make the most money from the bills currently being proposed, i.e. cap-and-trade.

Obama has spent quite a bit of money on investing in green energies, and for that I commend him. It is likely the best policy in terms of national defense, because right now to survive we must feed our enemies, a blatant strategic failure on our part.


And California is retarded. For those who don't know, congress has redirected our fresh water back out into the ocean to save the delta smelt fish from getting caught up in the water turbines, therefore creating an artificial drought. They ration energy and water here, then when you conserve too much energy or water, they penalize you. I live near the "farming" part of California and they are being hit extremely hard by this, with unemployment at record levels in our farming community. Signs are erected across all the farms saying "Congress created dustbowl", and behind the signs lay a desert that used to grow the food for the nation.

We wanted to make the states largest solar farm here, but the democrats gave in to the environmentalists again and scratched it because it may affect some endangered species of turtle. So they fail to make the choices that are best for the environment, yet california is perfectly fine with creating a carbon trading scheme to make money from, which as we know, does not reduce c02 in any relevant way.

[RealmofOpeth]

Yes, let's all get baptized and go to church "just in case" the rapture is real while we're at it....

completely useless analogy. You see, there's no point in worrying about the rapture given that there is absolutely zero evidence beyond a book full of bullshit. With anthropogenic climate change however, there's actual information to sift through, and a real understanding to take place beyond that of the layman. I know that's why the clergy might see a need for biblical scholars, to try to interpret the right meanings that the layman might have a hard time with....but that's completely useless as well, as there is no corroborating evidence of any kind except that which the scholars agree on to make sense to themselves about an ancient, vague scripture. Basically, they're putting more meaning into the religion than there was probably intended in the first place.
The difference with science is that the researchers are usually still alive and all source where they got their information and have an open-source viewing of why they came to a conclusion. If they do not, they can be challenged. It's known as falsifiability. Something religion will never have, therefore, never should be used as an analogy to scientific matters, except in pointing out how religion needs to be taken less seriously than science.

And when you think there's no real evidence to support anthropogenic climate change, then you should probably realize that when you're trying to win an argument by using material that actually speaks opposed to the point you're trying to make, there's a serious problem in your evaluation of the evidence.

In terms of the economy being affected, that is all irrelevant to whether or not anthropogenic climate change is happening or not.
The mistakes, incompetence, cronyism, backstabbing, fleecing, etc...these are all factors that need to be separated and dealt with accordingly, not conflated with the existence of climate change.

Earth changes and solar effects happen for sure, but having a layer of carbon emissions throwing off the balance to a point of no return is unnecessary and can be mitigated.
If you're so sure of your info and assertions, I urge you to view the videos I posted (and associated series).
I think the videos are important because they do a great job of making sense of the matters, where a science journalist is putting things into concepts the average joe can understand. Am I saying trust him, or anybody else who tries to make sense of it? No, that's why you should try to point out where the issues are. If you can't be bothered, don't understand it, or can't accept that if you do point out an issue that it might not actually be wrong, then don't pretend you know what you're talking about on the issue any further and expect to be taken seriously.


I wasn't saying 'convert just in case' as in some type of pascal's wager, I was basically saying that unless you've got the goods to explain how they're wrong, then don't bother trying to fight it...instead, fight the bad ideas of dealing with the problem, which are very tangible. Science isn't a democracy at all, it's purely conquest of what information is better than previous information or fills a gap that wasn't filled before. A lot of people get put off by that, but as the 'debate' over evolution vs. creationism exists in the public realm, it's nowhere to be really found in the scientific realm. That's why it will get squashed every time it gets brought up, unless people think they can repudiate science, a truth-based discipline in favor of 2 wolves and a sheep deciding on whats for dinner. People who don't know better trying to strong-arm what they think is true and correct compared to what they've proven is true and correct. This country needs to pull its head out of its ass in terms of understanding what science is and isn't.

[sgreger1]

@ Realm.


I've already had this debate at length with Justin so I won't go into detail again. Basically your right in that religion vs. science doens't make sense, and the creation/evolution thing is retarded. Some things are just so observable and proven that there is no question.

Check out the Non governmental Panel on Climate Change, they have some intiresting research on the subject. I'm tired of hearing how everyone has a concensus when there are more and more scientists (many of the who used to work for the IPCC) saying they don't agree.


At the end of the day, I am one of those don't trust the government types, right or wrong, and I feel like this whole climate change issue is being used to promote a money making scheme.

Proponents say we should save the earth, and i agree. Where we differ is on how it should be done. I suggest we get off oil and use technology to create more sustainable practices, whereas most of the AGW proponents seem to be in favor of having the government set up a new carbon currency to put the burden of change on the middle class, while the big corporations profit from this new green movement.

While the climate is changing like it always has, and we should always focus on reducing pollution, the current climate of the debate is really centered around making money off the problem as opposed to fixing it. Once americans start seeing 7$ gas, they will re-evaluate whether or not they think the government has gone the right way with this thing.

I'll just leave it at that.

[RealmofOpeth]

@ Realm.

At the end of the day, I am one of those don't trust the government types, right or wrong, and I feel like this whole climate change issue is being used to promote a money making scheme.

You bet there is. I'm not being sarcastic, either. Of course there's many jackals looking to bite into this meaty venture of climate change 'fixes'. What does that have to do with whether climate change exists or not? Are we doomed to somebody raking in cash off of it or is there another way? I'm thinking there's other ways. If the 'dems and libs' are doing it all ****ed up, call them out on it...why drag the existence of the issue into the mix? Just as an umbrella tactic of dismissing ANYTHING proposed to fix the problem, given the assumption that there's no way to prevent scoundrels from manipulating the problem?

Proponents say we should save the earth, and i agree. Where we differ is on how it should be done. I suggest we get off oil and use technology to create more sustainable practices, whereas most of the AGW proponents seem to be in favor of having the government set up a new carbon currency to put the burden of change on the middle class, while the big corporations profit from this new green movement.

Great...go after that then. We essentially agree, but you seem to want to attach bad ways of being done to existence of the problem.
Is it not possible to care about the earth in terms of reducing the reason climate change would become true, or reducing the understanding of something that is true?
I don't know about you, but if i wasn't even sure whether it was true or not that climate change is occurring, i would still find it believable, that it could be ****ed up after many tons of fumes from all the vehicles and plants in the world might just get to be too much. Base level common sense could tell you that regardless if you have any evidence to back it up...perhaps some scientists had a hypothesis about that...and did some experiments, and found they were true. But they didn't KNOW anything about them being true until they set out to figure it out. If not, they move on to what makes sense. No real scientist doesn't do that, and they police themselves because of their nerd nature of perfectionism. If some dunce or manipulator comes along, they stick out like a sore thumb.
But they base their science on a common logic that people of any intelligence may have about a subject, and work from there to see if that is actually the case.
Kind of like evolution. It's pretty obvious and sensical....but some people have reservations about their obsession with divinity.

greenhouse gases reaching high levels seems pretty obvious and sensical....but some people have reservations about the government ****ing absolutely everything up so let's basically never use a fix to the problem at all by denying the problem is there.

While the climate is changing like it always has, and we should always focus on reducing pollution, the current climate of the debate is really centered around making money off the problem as opposed to fixing it. Once americans start seeing 7$ gas, they will re-evaluate whether or not they think the government has gone the right way with this thing.

I'll just leave it at that.

It depends on how you value 7$ for gas. It could be taken a little more constructively than that, say, the reason being to discourage people from burning it...especially when (and if) safer fuels/energies are abundant and can be used.
Do you think they'll just make that the case off the bat? **** no there would be instant rebellion.
It's just like cigarettes getting taxed to shit. Maybe not entirely just like, but very similar in reasons. I don't really give a damn about people bitching that cigarettes cost so much. Here's a solution...stop smoking them. People still have the freedom to harm themselves, but when they can't afford it anymore, somehow the government is being oppressive about a very well known to be harmful substance. Who ****ing cares.
Nobody needs it, it costs money to deal with, so let's kill two birds with one stone....I'm sure there's many exceptions going on, but they should be fought for what they are....such as banning snus because it's tobacco.
**** those rabid anti-tobacco people when they conflate snus to cigarettes. However, they have a point about mitigating smoking with hiking taxes, because it harms people and they can show it. Snus they don't. So they should be fought on that level, not whether or not tobacco can be harmful.

Whenever there becomes much more energy source than oil to be used and it's easy to get, then I don't give a shit if gas hits $100 a gallon. I won't be using it, because other stuff works just as well.
If however they decide to just jack shit up before things get into swing with alternate power source, then they are ****ing stupid and haven't thought it through...but it will still get implemented at some point. Then you can still challenge the whole premise on whether it actually works....

How that relates at all with the existence of climate change is beyond me, except to just sweep under the rug ALL of the proposed fixes to the situation rather than going through the tall-order task of thinking them through and debating those for what work and what doesn't.
I can understand how that can be feared a great deal due to god knows what people ****ing it up anyway, but it's still something to work towards....not just foregoing the whole issue and say **** it and wonder why more shit goes wrong accelerating the longer we wait try to put efforts towards it.
Put your money where your mouth is and support a good way to reduce reasons for climate change to become more realized in reality, instead of ideologically, and fight any means of manipulation for what it is, not just because it seems bad in one sense, or that the basic reason it's based on must be fought.


BTW did you watch those videos? I mean if he's wrong, point it out, tell him and see what he's got to say in reply. I highly doubt a science journalist wouldn't know about the privileged information you have of large bodies of skeptics and what their reasons are based on.

[sgreger1]

You bet there is. I'm not being sarcastic, either. Of course there's many jackals looking to bite into this meaty venture of climate change 'fixes'. What does that have to do with whether climate change exists or not? Are we doomed to somebody raking in cash off of it or is there another way? I'm thinking there's other ways. If the 'dems and libs' are doing it all ****ed up, call them out on it...why drag the existence of the issue into the mix? Just as an umbrella tactic of dismissing ANYTHING proposed to fix the problem, given the assumption that there's no way to prevent scoundrels from manipulating the problem?

Oh i see where our disconnect is now. No I don’t believe that there is no climate change and that it is just completely made up by scientists or anything. I believe there is changes happening, like always, perhaps more drastic than usual, and I think that a certain group is trying to over-sell it as a doomsday end of the world scenario. Like if we don't pass legislation today we will all be doomed. This is why they say things like there will be no glaciers in the himalayas in 20 years, sea levels will rise destroying millions etc. I am sure the earth is changing and I don't doubt it's getting warmer, but I just think that it's odd when suddenly all scientists agree on something in a field that is still in it's infancy stages. For them to say without a doubt that the planet will look like that movie 2012 in a few years I think is a little overdoing it.

If not, they move on to what makes sense. No real scientist doesn't do that, and they police themselves because of their nerd nature of perfectionism. If some dunce or manipulator comes along, they stick out like a sore thumb.

I wish that were true but in the last few months we've already seen some pretty shady things coming out of these scientists. Not even that they are trying to conspire for something but they are particularly engaged in this one, claiming they will make vicious partisan attacks to "beat the deniers". I think just having solid data should be enough. No need to deny FOI requests and get rid of the documents you are basing your numbers off of like Phill Jones did, you know? It only takes a few bad apples to kill the credibility of the whole profession. Plus citing non-scientific data from the World Wildlife Fund and other activist groups, as well as pop-science magazines as "peer reviewed" evidence also loses credibility. Better to stick with real data than use tabloid articles with nothing to back them up.

Kind of like evolution. It's pretty obvious and sensical....but some people have reservations about their obsession with divinity.

The thing I love about Evolution is that it has been studied and backed up by data for so long that there's no question in my mind. For all the scientists to come out one day when it is politically expedient and claim they have a consensus that the world will end and that the debate is over makes me wonder. Not used to scientists starting their hypothesis with "the debate is over, all scientists agree", since that is uncommon in the scientific community. (At least for relatively new theories)

greenhouse gases reaching high levels seems pretty obvious and sensical....but some people have reservations about the government ****ing absolutely everything up so let's basically never use a fix to the problem at all by denying the problem is there.

No that's silly. If something is happening than we need to fix it. But by just accepting it on blind faith and from some IPCC report, which many scientists are now dissenting against, seems a little premature. When we are contemplating giving the government the power to create an entire new multi-trillion market that will inevitably be dominated by the biggest polluters, I like to take a second and evaluate whether that is the best way to solve it or not. In this age of corruption everything deserves a second look.

It depends on how you value 7$ for gas. It could be taken a little more constructively than that, say, the reason being to discourage people from burning it...especially when (and if) safer fuels/energies are abundant and can be used.
Do you think they'll just make that the case off the bat? **** no there would be instant rebellion.

A) If alternative energy were abundant it would not be a problem at all. The problem: Alternative energy is not abundant.

B)According to Harvard researchers, to meet the Obama administrations current targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, gas prices would have to be raised to $7. Even Obama said that under his proposal "Energy prices would necessarily skyrocket".

We payed $4 gas under that moron Bush and no one seemed to revolt then, unfortunately.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/20...searchers-say/

It's just like cigarettes getting taxed to shit. Maybe not entirely just like, but very similar in reasons. I don't really give a damn about people bitching that cigarettes cost so much. Here's a solution...stop smoking them. People still have the freedom to harm themselves, but when they can't afford it anymore, somehow the government is being oppressive about a very well known to be harmful substance.

Like I said, i'm much more to the right on issues like that. I don't think that the beurocrats have any place to be deciding what is or isn't healthy for me. Next thing I know there will be a federal Tofu mandate requiring me to have at least 1 cube of tofu in every meal
Like imagine they start doing the same thing with snus. We can claim all day it's not as bad for you and should be used instead of smoking, but they will pay some hack researcher to prove they are bad, like they have already done. It's not hard to fake research for lobbying interests.

Nobody needs it, it costs money to deal with, so let's kill two birds with one stone....

The problem with this mindset is that measures like banning or making cigarettes too expensive disproportionately affects the lower classes of society. Some people only have cigarettes as their daily pleasure and now the government has come in and told them it's bad, so to help them they will just take more money from you to make it more difficult for you to have your pleasure. IMO, not the government's job.

I'm sure there's many exceptions going on, but they should be fought for what they are....such as banning snus because it's tobacco.
**** those rabid anti-tobacco people when they conflate snus to cigarettes. However, they have a point about mitigating smoking with hiking taxes, because it harms people and they can show it. Snus they don't. So they should be fought on that level, not whether or not tobacco can be harmful.

If the gov wanted to tax snus they would find a researcher who could claim it is bad, and then find another researcher so that it is now peer reviewed. It would not be the first time. My wife is a chemist and works in a lab doing research, it's easy to interpret the results the way you want to if you were trying to prove one thing as opposed to another.

Whenever there becomes much more energy source than oil to be used and it's easy to get, then I don't give a shit if gas hits $100 a gallon. I won't be using it, because other stuff works just as well.

You and me both lol. The problem is that the oil companies have so much money and power that I just don't see any real viable alternative energies coming to the mainstream anytime soon, until that oil starts drying up and they are forced to look for their next method of robbery.

If however they decide to just jack shit up before things get into swing with alternate power source, then they are ****ing stupid and haven't thought it through...but it will still get implemented at some point. Then you can still challenge the whole premise on whether it actually works....

Lol, just look at europe. Rediculous gas prices and a cap-and-trade system that hasn't helped the climate at all, but has made the rich richer. This is why I don't want it here.

How that relates at all with the existence of climate change is beyond me, except to just sweep under the rug ALL of the proposed fixes to the situation rather than going through the tall-order task of thinking them through and debating those for what work and what doesn't.
I can understand how that can be feared a great deal due to god knows what people ****ing it up anyway, but it's still something to work towards....not just foregoing the whole issue and say **** it and wonder why more shit goes wrong accelerating the longer we wait try to put efforts towards it.

I don't think we should ignore it. I just don't think we should give into the alarmist nature of the subject. Once the scientists stop this "theres a concensus" thing and start having open debates with people that have opposing viewpoints and data, I will have more faith in the results.

BTW did you watch those videos? I mean if he's wrong, point it out, tell him and see what he's got to say in reply. I highly doubt a science journalist wouldn't know about the privileged information you have of large bodies of skeptics and what their reasons are based on.

No sorry my work computer won't allow me to watch them and my wife has been hogging the computer at home. I look forward to viewing them tonight though if I get a chance. Justin posted some good videos that I learned a lot of too so hopefully these are just as good.

I am positive some of the anti-agw groups are funded by the energy companies, but at the same time some of the pro-agw groups are funded by the energy companies. They are doing what lobbyists always do, fund both sides so that whoever wins will be in your favor. Doesn't mean there shouldn't be an open discussion on climate change. To dismiss anyone who doesn't believe what you believe as "vodoo science" is not scientific. Especially when you turn out wrong like the IPCC did. Just discredits your cause.

[justintempler]

I'm going to take a break and offer some solutions:

Using Wind power to make a completely green liquid fuel

Wind + Salt Water = Electricity + Potable Drinking Water + NH3

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/T70cF5IW-Zg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed>

http://www.oceanenergy.org/default.asp

University of Minnesota is working on it too:
http://renewables.morris.umn.edu/wind/ammonia/

http://www.energy.iastate.edu/Renewa...Reese_2008.pdf

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8vwmzkn0paM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed>

http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/861
http://www.ammoniafuelnetwork.org/projects.html

Ammonia will burn in Internal Combustion Engines, Diesels and Gas Turbines so it can be produced when the wind turbines are producing excess electricity and then used to power generators when the wind dies down, acting a storage medium like a battery to balance the load.

[snupy]

The climate change deniers are no different than evolution or gravity deniers, in my opinion. We all know the oil companies are behind the climate denying propaganda.

And now you have idiots running around claiming climate change can't be true because we had a winter that was so cold, which is no different than claiming gravity can't be true since planes can fly through the air.

When and if the National Academy of Sciences of every major western democracy deny climate change, then I will too, and not a second before.

[sgreger1]

We all know the oil companies are behind the climate denying propaganda.

.

Do you not understand how lobbying works? They play both sides, spend some money for the denier side and some money for the supporter side. That's why many large energy companies are PRO agw and green energy. They are just waiting to see how this all plays out. In the end it will be a green gold rush for all these big corporations you guys hate, just like it has been in Europe.

Blaming the oil companies for people who don't agree with you is silly. Since many of the oil companies are pro AGW and want legislation on it, does that mean that oil companies are behind AGW? No.

While your right that a lot of the "deniers" are the bible thumpers and whatnot, how do you explain the scientists that don't agree with AGW? Do they not believe in evolution too?



Everyone knows climate change is happening, it's just a question of whether us cutting our emissions drastically will have any real effect on cooling the planet. It a boondoggle and wouldn't work.
Even if the whole world embraced AGW the carbon still needs to be emitted to keep the world turning and china, third world countries etc will not lose money and stop raising cattle because some hippies want to save the planet. So it doesn't really matter anyways.

[snupy]

In the end it will be a green gold rush for all these big corporations you guys hate,

Provide a direct quote and post number where I have ever claimed to hate 'these big corporations,' or I will consider the above claim retracted due to falsehood.

Blaming the oil companies for people who don't agree with you is silly.

Who is blaming the oil companies for not agreeing with me? They deny SCIENTIFIC FACTS. I have no control over what are SCIENTIFIC FACTS, which means it has nothing at all to do with what I do or do not agree with personally.

While your right that a lot of the "deniers" are the bible thumpers and whatnot, how do you explain the scientists that don't agree with AGW? Do they not believe in evolution too?

The same way I explain the .00000000001% of scientists that do not agree with evolution.

Everyone knows climate change is happening, it's just a question of whether us cutting our emissions drastically will have any real effect on cooling the planet.

There is NO question if one listens to the National Academies of Science of EVERY major western democracy, just as there is no question about the FACT and THEORY of evolution if one pays heed to 99.9999999999% of scientists.

It a boondoggle and wouldn't work.

So it's a boondoggle if one listens to .0000001% of scientists who deny it while ignoring the 99.99999999% who support it. That speaks well enough for your position.

Even if the whole world embraced AGW the carbon still needs to be emitted to keep the world turning and china, third world countries etc will not lose money and stop raising cattle because some hippies want to save the planet. So it doesn't really matter anyways.

Provide evidence for ANY of your claims in the above sentence or I will consider them ALL to be retracted due to falsehood. (I mean really. As IF you have any evidence whatsoever that the National Academies of Science of EVERY major western democracy is full of 'hippies.' Do you not know the difference between a proof and a smear tactic?)

Now, given the following:

^ The 2001 joint statement was signed by the national academies of science of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, the People's Republic of China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK. The 2005 statement added Japan, Russia, and the U.S. The 2007 statement added Mexico and South Africa. The Network of African Science Academies, and the Polish Academy of Sciences have issued separate statements. Professional scientific societies include American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Quaternary Association, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Geosciences Union, European Science Foundation, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission, InterAcademy Council, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union for Quaternary Research, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, National Research Council (US), Royal Meteorological Society, and World Meteorological Organization.

Please explain what the above organizations hope to gain, by advancing the 'fraud' of climate change? What reason do they have to lie?

[justintempler]

The anti global warming crowd can't even come up with a consistent argument, they are all over the place.

Their real argument is they don't want to pay extra taxes. Their argument is the extra taxes on carbon will hurt the economy and hurt jobs. They wanted to keep oil cheap and in their dream state they figured they would have limitless cheap oil. Drill Baby Drill!

Time to wake up from the dream, all the cheap oil is gone. In the middle of this recession oil is already over $80 a barrel and it's only going to get more expensive keeping us stuck in recession.

Exxon's growing reliance on expensive oil

China's oil demand increase 'astonishing', says IEA

Now we'll be stuck with a crippled economy, expensive oil, and the a bill for climate change with no money left for the infrastructure to rebuild a green economy.

We'll be too busy paying off the IOUs to Middle East and Asian countries.

---

If you want a sampling of some real news that doesn't come directly from the MSM, Fox News, Tabloids and Conspiracy web sites here's a couple to get you started.

From the Wilderness' Peak Oil Blog And read the Daily Digests here: http://www.chrismartenson.com/

another one of my favorites is Jeff Rubin:
http://www.jeffrubinssmallerworld.co...-wrong-places/

[sgreger1]

Yawn. Even I am starting to get bored of this conversation. Lets leave it at this, we are not in charge of anything so our leaders will either pass/not pass meaningful legislation and we will/won't save the planet. Nothing we can do.


I realize the hypocrisy of the deniers as much as you guys do, but you people have the same problem. Saying bs like 99.999% of scientists agree with global warming is nonsense. What about the scientists who said the himalaya prediction was wrong? They were called practitioners of voodoo science by the IPCC, remember? But they were right. Using strawman arguments and hyperbole to say that anyone who questions it doesn't believe in evolution or is a flat earther etc is stupid. All of these people who do not agree with the current AGW theory are better educated and generally smarter (in this particular field) than you are. Same goes for me. Right now most scientists say there is global warming, so until that changes I cannot disagree. I think it's a scam but I generally trust scientists to be in charge of the science. I care more about how politicians react to it. You have films like "an inconvenient truth" out there that has been shown in the high court to have multiple errors and generally not be factual, yet people will watch it and be afraid the world is going to end. Meanwhile gore is positioned to be making a lot of cash once the world buys onto his fear mongering.

You think cap-and-trade saves the world? Go read the countless articles about how it does not such thing, and is actually just hurting companies and is nothing more than a giant racket in which the usual group of big corps get paid off.



Justin, at the end of the day you and I agree. Get off oil. Quit wasting money on wars and build infrastructure for a new green economy so that we can be at the forefront of the industry when this thing eventually become mainstream.

Snupy, your getting too riled up. By stating that the whole "denier" thing is just some big oil company funded operation I naturally assumed you did not like oil companies. Thanks for clearing that up. They play both sides like every other company. They'r swine and I would like to see them go out of business.


And as for the proof you require for my comments, just take 5 minutes to meet the googles and look up how developed countries end up just outsourcing their carbon usage (read as JOBS) so that they can look greener in their country and sell off the excess carbon credits. Like always, this cap and trade thing will just be us pushing the problem off on developing countries.

[snupy]

Yawn. Even I am starting to get bored of this conversation.

AS usual, when asked for proof of your claims, you can't deliver. Yawn indeed.

I realize the hypocrisy of the deniers as much as you guys do, but you people have the same problem.

It's not my problem if others deny scientific facts. The problem lies with the deniers.

Saying bs like 99.999% of scientists agree with global warming is nonsense.

The only BS here is for your refusal to offer proof as to why the following organizations would LIE about climate change:

^ The 2001 joint statement was signed by the national academies of science of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, the People's Republic of China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK. The 2005 statement added Japan, Russia, and the U.S. The 2007 statement added Mexico and South Africa. The Network of African Science Academies, and the Polish Academy of Sciences have issued separate statements. Professional scientific societies include American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Quaternary Association, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Geosciences Union, European Science Foundation, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission, InterAcademy Council, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union for Quaternary Research, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, National Research Council (US), Royal Meteorological Society, and World Meteorological Organization.

Until and unless you offer some reasonable explanation as to why ALL of the above groups would LIE about climate change, we've no reason whatsoever to take your claims about climage change seriously, since you CAN'T offer ANY proof as to why ALL of the above groups would choose to LIE about it.

What about the scientists who said the himalaya prediction was wrong? They were called practitioners of voodoo science by the IPCC, remember? But they were right.

Retraction of one specific claim regarding climate change, does not automatically cause all other evidence which supports climate change to disappear.

Using strawman arguments and hyperbole to say that anyone who questions it doesn't believe in evolution or is a flat earther etc is stupid.

Refusing to address the long list of scientific organizations who support climate change and explain why they are wrong lets us all know exactly how seriously to take your position on climate change.

All of these people who do not agree with the current AGW theory are better educated and generally smarter (in this particular field) than you are.

You have yet to offer any evidence of 'All of these people who do not agree with the current AGW,' much less have you offered any evidence as to why the following list of scientific organizations from around the world SUPPORT climate change:


^ The 2001 joint statement was signed by the national academies of science of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, the People's Republic of China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK. The 2005 statement added Japan, Russia, and the U.S. The 2007 statement added Mexico and South Africa. The Network of African Science Academies, and the Polish Academy of Sciences have issued separate statements. Professional scientific societies include American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Quaternary Association, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Geosciences Union, European Science Foundation, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission, InterAcademy Council, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union for Quaternary Research, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, National Research Council (US), Royal Meteorological Society, and World Meteorological Organization.

Right now most scientists say there is global warming, so until that changes I cannot disagree. I think it's a scam but I generally trust scientists to be in charge of the science.

You just contradicted yourself. You first claim you can not disagree with the scientists, then next proclaim you think what they believe is a scam. You prove to all here you've not the slightest clue of what you speak.

I care more about how politicians react to it. You have films like "an inconvenient truth" out there that has been shown in the high court to have multiple errors and generally not be factual, yet people will watch it and be afraid the world is going to end. Meanwhile gore is positioned to be making a lot of cash once the world buys onto his fear mongering.

All of the above is absolutely immaterial to the SCIENTIFIC FACTS supported by the very long list of scientific organizations from around the world, which you have yet to refute.

You think cap-and-trade saves the world?

Provide a direct quote and post number where I have ever claimed the above, or I will consider the above assertion retracted due to utter falsehood.

Snupy, your getting too riled up.

Why would I get riled up when you so very clearly can't offer so much as one shred of evidence to back up a single assertion you make?

By stating that the whole "denier" thing is just some big oil company funded operation I naturally assumed you did not like oil companies.

Assumed=jumped to conclusions, which is exactly what you do with respect to your denial of the scientific FACTS of climate change, and your inability to REFUTE the very long list of scientific organizations from around the world who SUPPORT the science behind climate change.

And as for the proof you require for my comments, just take 5 minutes to meet the googles

If you make a claim, you need to offer evidence to support it. If you can't do that, you've let us all know how seriously we should take your claims (or not).

Now, will you, or will you not, address the fact of the very long list of scientific organizations from around the world who SUPPORT climate change or not? Can you refute those scientists, or offer any evidence whatsoever as to why they would lie about the science? If you can't refute, nor offer a shred of evidence to back up your claims, this conversation is over.